Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
OCS EIS/EA
BOEM 2021-084
Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site
Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina
Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
OCS EIS/EA
BOEM 2021-084
Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site
Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer
Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina
Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment
December 2021
Author
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
Published by
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
Office of Renewable Energy Programs
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Identification of North Carolina Wind Energy Areas .................................................... 1
1.2 Leasing Process .......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objective of This SEA ................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Revisions to the Leasing, Site Characterization, and Site Assessment Scenarios ..... 4
2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ................................................................................... 6
3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 6
3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative A – Preferred Alternative) ............................................. 7
3.2 Alternative B ................................................................................................................ 7
3.3 Alternative C ................................................................................................................ 7
3.4 Alternative D – No Action ............................................................................................ 8
3.5 Standard Operating Conditions ................................................................................... 8
4 EVALUATION OF NEW INFORMATION AND CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES .................. 9
4.1 Alternative A (Preferred Alternative)............................................................................ 9
4.1.1 Benthic Resources .............................................................................................. 9
4.1.2 Finfish and Essential Fish Habitat ..................................................................... 10
4.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries ........................................................... 11
4.1.4 Birds and Bats ................................................................................................... 13
4.1.5 Air Quality.......................................................................................................... 14
4.1.6 Water Quality .................................................................................................... 14
4.1.7 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure ................................................................ 15
4.1.8 Demographics and Employment & Environmental Justice ............................... 15
4.1.9 Tourism and Recreation .................................................................................... 16
4.1.10 Navigation and Vessel Traffic ........................................................................... 17
4.1.11 Cultural, Historical, and Archaeological Resources .......................................... 18
4.1.12 Visual Resources .............................................................................................. 21
4.1.13 Threatened and Endangered Species, Marine Mammals, and Sea Turtles ..... 22
4.1.14 Updates to BOEM SOCs................................................................................... 29
4.2 Alternative C .............................................................................................................. 30
4.2.1 Benthic Resources ............................................................................................ 30
4.2.2 Finfish and EFH ................................................................................................ 30
4.2.3 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries ........................................................... 31
i
4.2.4 Birds and Bats ................................................................................................... 31
4.2.5 Air Quality.......................................................................................................... 32
4.2.6 Water Quality .................................................................................................... 32
4.2.7 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure ................................................................ 32
4.2.8 Demographics and Employment & Environmental Justice ............................... 32
4.2.9 Tourism and Recreation .................................................................................... 33
4.2.10 Navigation and Vessel Traffic ........................................................................... 33
4.2.11 Cultural, Historical, and Archaeological Resources .......................................... 33
4.2.12 Visual Resources .............................................................................................. 33
4.2.13 Threatened and Endangered Species, Marine Mammals, and Sea Turtles ..... 34
4.3 Alternative D – No Action .......................................................................................... 34
4.3.1 Air Quality.......................................................................................................... 34
4.3.2 Water Quality .................................................................................................... 35
4.3.3 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure ................................................................ 35
4.3.4 Socioeconomic Resources................................................................................ 35
4.3.5 Biological Resources......................................................................................... 35
4.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................... 36
5 CONSULTATIONS AND COORDINATION ......................................................................... 37
5.1 Public Involvement .................................................................................................... 37
5.1.1 Note to Stakeholders......................................................................................... 37
5.2 Consultations............................................................................................................. 38
5.2.1 Endangered Species Act................................................................................... 38
5.2.2 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ..................... 40
5.2.3 Coastal Zone Management Act......................................................................... 41
5.2.4 National Historic Preservation Act..................................................................... 41
6 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................... 43
7 PREPARERS ........................................................................................................................ 48
APPENDIX A. Project Design Criteria and Best Management Practices for Protected
Species .................................................................................................................................... A-1
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Location of the Wilmington East Wind Energy Area (WEA) and Proposed Sale
Notice (PSN) ................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 1-2. Wilmington East Wind Energy Area (WEA) and Proposed Sale Notice (PSN) .......... 3
Figure 4-1. Overlap of proposed fairways in the Wilmington East WEA ..................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1. Summary of baseline archaeological survey information and recommendations from
2017 study of the Wilmington East and West WEAs .................................................................. 20
Table 4-2. Threatened and endangered species and marine mammal occurrence in the
Wilmington East WEA ................................................................................................................. 23
iiiLIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
2015 EA Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site Assessment Activities on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina - Revised Environmental
Assessment
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
AMP Alternative Monitoring Plan
APE area of potential effects
ASV autonomous surface vessel
BA biological assessment
BMP Best Management Practices
BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement
CD consistency determination
CMECS Coastal and Marine Ecological Classification Standard
COP Construction and Operations Plan
DMA Dynamic Management Area
DOI Department of the Interior
DPS Distinct Population Segments
EA Environmental Assessment
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EFH essential fish habitat
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FCP Fisheries Communications Plan
FMP Fishery Management Plan
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FSN Final Sale Notice
ft foot/feet
G&G geological and geophysical
GAP General Activities Plan
GPS Global Positioning
HAPC Habitat Areas of Particular Concern
HMS highly migratory species
ITA Incidental Take Authorization
LoC Letter of Concurrence
m meter(s)
mi mile(s)
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NARW North Atlantic right whale
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
ivnm nautical mile(s)
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOI Notice of Intent
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OCS Outer Continental Shelf
PDC Project Design Criteria
PSN Proposed Sale Notice
PSO protected species observer
PTS permanent threshold shift
RMS root-mean-square
ROW right-of-way
SAP Site Assessment Plan
SAR Stock Assessment Report
SBP sub-bottom profiler
SEA Supplemental Environmental Assessment
SEL sound exposure level
SELC Southern Environmental Law Center
SERO Southeast Regional Office
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SLR single lens reflex
SMA Seasonal Management Area
SMZ special management zones
SOC Standard Operating Condition
SPL sound pressure level
TSS traffic separation scheme
TTS temporary threshold shifts
UME Unusual Mortality Event
USBL ultra-short baseline
USCG U.S. Coast Guard
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WEA Wind Energy Area
v1 BACKGROUND
The United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) has prepared this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) to determine
whether the issuance of leases within the Wilmington East Wind Energy Area (WEA) offshore
North and South Carolina and associated site characterization and site assessment activities
would lead to reasonably foreseeable significant impacts on the environment and, thus, whether
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared before leases are issued.
1.1 Identification of North Carolina Wind Energy Areas
On August 7, 2014, BOEM announced the identification of three WEAs offshore North
Carolina, 1 of which only #3 is subject to this SEA:
1. The Kitty Hawk WEA begins about 24 nautical miles (nm) from shore and extends
approximately 25.7 nm in a general southeast direction. Its seaward extent ranges from
13.5 nm in the north to 0.6 nm in the south. It contains approximately 21.5 Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) blocks (approximately 122,405 acres).
2. The Wilmington West WEA begins about 10 nm from shore and extends approximately
12.3 nm in an east-west direction at its widest point. It contains just over 9 OCS blocks
(approximately 51,595 acres).
3. The Wilmington East WEA, the subject of this SEA, begins about 15 nm from Bald
Head Island at its closest point and extends approximately 18 nm in the southeast
direction at its widest point. It contains approximately 25 OCS blocks (approximately
133,590 acres; Figures 1-1 and 1-2).
The Wilmington West and East WEAs are part of a larger planning area BOEM refers to as the
Carolina Long Bay area offshore the Carolinas. 2
1
https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/renewable-energy-program/State-
Activities/NC/NC_AreaID_Announcement_.pdf
2
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/state-activities/carolina-long-bay
1Figure 1-1. Location of the Wilmington East Wind Energy
Area (WEA) and Proposed Sale Notice (PSN)
2Figure 1-2. Wilmington East Wind Energy Area (WEA) and Proposed Sale Notice (PSN)
1.2 Leasing Process
On September 17, 2015, BOEM published the Commercial Wind Lease Issuance and Site
Assessment Activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Offshore North Carolina - Revised
Environmental Assessment (BOEM 2015)(80 FR 56494; referred to this in document as the
“2015 EA”). The 2015 EA considers the environmental impacts of issuing leases and approving
site assessment plans (SAPs) within the entirety of the three WEAs offshore North Carolina.
BOEM’s issuance of these leases is needed (a) to confer the exclusive right to submit plans to
BOEM for potential development (e.g., SAPs and a Construction and Operations Plan (COP));
and (b) to ensure that site characterization and site assessment activities are conducted in a safe
and environmentally responsible manner. As a result of the analysis in the 2015 EA, BOEM
issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI) stating that no reasonably foreseeable
significant impacts were expected to occur as a result of the proposed action or any of the
alternatives contemplated in the 2015 EA; therefore, the preparation of an EIS was not required.
On January 17, 2017, BOEM announced the publication of the Final Sale Notice (FSN) for a
lease sale offshore North Carolina for just one lease in the Kitty Hawk WEA. On March 16,
2017, BOEM held a competitive lease sale (i.e., auction) for the Kitty Hawk WEA. Avangrid
3Renewables, LLC, which bid $9,066,650, was the winner of Renewable Energy Lease OCS-A
0508 (approximately 122,405 acres). The lease was signed by BOEM on October 10, 2017, and
went into effect on November 1, 2017.
The Wilmington West and Wilmington East WEAs were removed from this sale due to concerns
over visual impacts that also applied to the South Carolina areas. Additionally, the entire
Wilmington West WEA was located in proposed right whale critical habitat area. The thought
was to combine the Wilmington Areas with the South Carolina leasing effort and resolve the
right whale and visual concerns in a more regional manner. The South Carolina leasing effort did
not move forward, but BOEM is now planning to conduct another lease sale, which may result in
the issuance of up to three commercial leases within the Wilmington East WEA.
On November 1, 2021, BOEM published a Proposed Sale Notice (PSN) for the Wilmington East
WEA and opened a 60-day comment period, which ends on January 3, 2022. 3 The PSN proposes
the issuance of up to three commercial wind energy leases. The area totals approximately
127,865 acres and includes the majority of the Wilmington East WEA. Lease blocks overlapping
the North Atlantic right whale (NARW) critical habitat and areas used for training identified by
the Department of Defense were removed from leasing consideration.
1.3 Objective of This SEA
BOEM has identified new information and changed circumstances regarding potential impacts
and issues that were not available at the time the 2015 EA. Some of this new information
includes a recent marine cultural resources survey, changes in the status of some Endangered
Species Act-listed species, the listing of new species, and the designation of the NARW critical
habitat.
BOEM prepared this SEA to evaluate the 2015 EA and FONSI in concert with current science,
studies, circumstances, and information relevant to reasonably foreseeable environmental
impacts that would occur from site characterization activities (i.e., shallow hazards, geological,
geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys of the lease area and potential cable routes)
and site assessment activities (i.e., installation and operation of meteorological buoys) associated
with issuing wind energy leases in the Wilmington East WEA. This SEA evaluates resources for
which new information has become available since the publication of the 2015 EA, and which
could be material to the decision-making process.
1.4 Revisions to the Leasing, Site Characterization, and Site Assessment
Scenarios
This SEA revises the leasing scenario analyzed in the 2015 EA. As stated above, BOEM is now
proposing a lease sale that may result in the issuance of up to three commercial wind energy
leases, all within the Wilmington East WEA (Proposed Action). While the 2015 EA only
considered the issuance of one lease per WEA, the subdivision of the Wilmington East WEA
3
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/11/01/2021-23801/atlantic-wind-lease-sale-9-atlw-9-for-
commercial-leasing-for-wind-power-on-the-outer-continental
4into more than one lease does not substantially alter the reasonably foreseeable activities that
would result from leasing the Wilmington East WEA. Therefore, this does not substantially
change the associated site assessment and characterization scenarios.
Regardless of the number of leases that BOEM would issue, the 2015 EA and this SEA both
consider full site characterization survey of the Wilmington East WEA. The 2015 EA was so
conservative in its forecast of survey activities, including vessel trips, that it covers any potential
increase that could result from multiple lessee mobilizations.
The 2015 EA assumed one meteorological tower or two meteorological buoys, or some
combination of a meteorological tower and buoy, would be installed within the Wilmington East
WEA. While BOEM is now anticipating up to three times the number of meteorological buoys
(up to two per lease) in the Willington East WEA, BOEM no longer foresees the construction of
a meteorological tower. 4 The installation and operation of meteorological buoys involves
substantially less activity and a much smaller footprint than the construction and operation of a
meteorological tower. For example, each installation of a meteorological buoy can be completed
in approximately 1 to 2 days, respectively, which involves one round vessel trip. Because the
decommissioning process would basically be the reverse of installation, it would also take
approximately 1 to 2 days for one vessel to decommission the meteorological buoy. These
estimates are well below the number of trips required for tower installation, up to approximately
40 round trips, and tower decommissioning, up to approximately 40 round trips, Additionally,
total installation time for one meteorological tower would take 8 days to 10 weeks, and total
decommissioning time would be 8 days to 10 weeks; therefore, impacts associated with the
construction and decommissioning of the number of projected meteorological buoys would be
much lower than for towers. Therefore, the reasonably foreseeable site assessment activities now
anticipated fall below the range considered with the 2015 EA.
The 2015 EA assumed that there will be up to one cable for each individual lease, each with a
984-foot-wide (300-meter-wide) survey corridor to shore and a maximum of 83.6 nm of cable
route to be surveyed for three cables. The impacts resulting from the revised scenario are not
expected to be different from those expected from the conservative scenario analyzed in the 2015
EA, since the 984-foot-wide (300-meter-wide) survey corridor analyzed in the 2015 EA is more
than the area contemplated in BOEM’s regulations to accommodate three cables (i.e., 200 ft
project easement, 30 CFR 585.628(g)(2)). It is not yet possible to predict precisely where a
power substation may ultimately be installed on any given lease or the route that any potential
future transmission line would take across the seafloor to shore, however, this SEA assumes a
maximum of three cable routes to different substations. A lessee would be required to submit
detailed information on proposed cable route(s) within their COP. BOEM would then analyze the
proposed route(s) in a project- and/or site-specific environmental document.
4
Meteorological buoys have become the preferred meteorological and oceanographic (metocean) data collection
platform for developers.
52 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
The purpose of the Proposed Action is to issue up to three leases and approve up to three SAPs
to allow lessees to assess the wind energy resource within the Wilmington East WEA. The need
for BOEM’s issuance of leases and approval of SAPs is to adequately assess wind and
environmental resources in some or all areas of the Wilmington East WEA to determine if areas
within the WEA are suitable for, and could support, commercial-scale wind energy production.
3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
The Proposed Action analyzed in this SEA is the issuance of up to three commercial wind energy
leases within the Wilmington East WEA offshore North Carolina and approval of site assessment
activities on those leaseholds (through the submission of an SAP) (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). This
SEA evaluates current science, studies, circumstances, and information relevant to reasonably
foreseeable environmental impacts that could occur from site characterization activities (i.e.,
shallow hazards, geological, geotechnical, archaeological, and biological surveys of the lease
area and potential cable routes) and site assessment activities (i.e., installation and operation of
meteorological buoys) 5 associated with issuing wind energy leases in the Wilmington East
WEA.
BOEM does not consider the issuance of a lease to constitute an irreversible and irretrievable
commitment of agency resources. The issuance of a lease only grants the lessee the exclusive
right to submit to BOEM an SAP and COP proposing development of the leasehold. Therefore,
the Proposed Action does not include construction and operation of any commercial wind energy
facilities, which would be evaluated in a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
analysis if a lessee submits a COP.
After lease issuance, a lessee would conduct surveys and, if authorized to do so pursuant to an
approved SAP, install meteorological measurement devices to characterize the site’s
environmental, cultural, historic, and socioeconomic resources and conditions and to assess the
wind resources in the proposed lease area. A lessee would collect this information to determine
whether the site is suitable for commercial development and, if so, submit a COP with its
project-specific design parameters for BOEM’s review. Should a lessee submit a COP, BOEM
would consider its merits; perform the necessary consultations with the appropriate state,
Federal, local, and tribal entities; solicit input from the public and the Regional Carolina Long
Bay Intergovernmental Renewable Energy Task Force; and perform an independent,
comprehensive, site- and project-specific NEPA analysis. This separate site- and project-specific
NEPA analysis may take the form of an EIS and would provide additional opportunities for
public involvement pursuant to NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations at
40 CFR Parts 1500–1508. BOEM would use this information to evaluate the potential
environmental and socioeconomic consequences associated with the lessee-proposed project
5
The installation and operation of meteorological towers was previously analyzed in the 2015 EA; however, this
SEA does not include the installation of meteorological towers since met buoys have become the preferred metocean
data collection platform for developers.
6when considering whether to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove a lessee’s COP
pursuant to 30 CFR 585.628. After lease issuance but prior to COP approval, BOEM retains the
authority to prevent the environmental impacts of a commercial wind energy facility from
occurring. BOEM would do this by disapproving a COP for failure to meet the statutory
standards set forth in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The timing of lease issuance, as well as weather and sea conditions, would be the primary factors
influencing timing of site characterization and site assessment survey activities. Under the
reasonably foreseeable site characterization scenario, BOEM could issue leases as soon as mid-
2022. It is assumed that lessees would begin survey activities as soon as possible after receiving
a lease and preparing a SAP and a Survey Plan, and when sea states and weather conditions
allow for site characterization and site assessment survey activities. Lessees have up to 5 years to
perform site characterization activities before they must submit a COP (30 CFR §585.235(a)(2)).
3.1 Proposed Action (Alternative A – Preferred Alternative)
The 2015 EA proposed action considered the issuance of commercial and research wind energy
leases within the entirety of the three WEAs offshore North Carolina and approval of site
assessment activities on those leaseholds. In 2017, BOEM issued a lease in the Kitty Hawk
WEA, and because BOEM is not currently pursuing leasing of the Wilmington West WEA, the
Proposed Action for this SEA has been revised to reflect the issuance of up to three commercial
wind energy leases within the majority of the Wilmington East WEA offshore North Carolina
and approval of site assessment activities on this leasehold(s). Although BOEM has identified
new information and changed circumstances regarding potential impacts and issues that were not
available at the time the 2015 EA was published on September 17, 2015, the impacts resulting
from the Proposed Action being analyzed here are not substantially different from those analyzed
in the 2015 EA. See Section 1 for an explanation of the revised leasing, site characterization, and
site assessment scenarios.
3.2 Alternative B
Under the 2015 EA’s Alternative B, the Wilmington West WEA would be excluded from
leasing, but leasing in the Kitty Hawk and Wilmington East WEAs would move forward.
Because the Proposed Action analyzed in this SEA only considers leasing in the Wilmington
East WEA, Alternative B is not being further analyzed in this SEA.
3.3 Alternative C
Under Alternative C, lease issuance and subsequent site characterization and site assessment
activities would still occur in the Wilmington East WEA; however, certain site characterization
activities would be seasonally restricted. Appendix A of the Data Collection and Site Survey
Activities Programmatic Informal Consultation (Baker and Howson 2021) includes mitigation
measures that apply to all alternatives. Alternative C expands these restrictions to include
prohibiting site characterization activities (surveys) during the winter months when NARWs
migrate offshore North Carolina.
7Specifically, this alternative would limit vessel activity by excluding high-resolution geological
and geophysical (G&G) surveys from November 1 through April 30 during the NARW
migratory period. Vessel traffic not associated with high-resolution G&G surveys (e.g.,
biological surveys, such as avian, bat, marine mammal, and sea turtle surveys) would not be
restricted.
3.4 Alternative D – No Action
Under the No Action Alternative, no wind energy leases would be issued, and no site
characterization and assessment activities would occur within the Wilmington East WEA.
Although site characterization surveys do not require BOEM approval and could still be
conducted under Alternative D, these activities would not be likely to occur without commercial
wind energy leases. The No Action Alternative was also considered in the 2015 EA.
3.5 Standard Operating Conditions
The 2015 EA concluded that the Standard Operating Conditions (SOCs) (Appendix B of the
2015 EA) could minimize or eliminate potential impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles.
These SOCs resulted from BOEM’s ESA consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) (see Section 5.2.1 of the 2015 EA). These conditions included vessel strike avoidance
and marine debris awareness measures; protected species observers; exclusion and monitoring
zones; sound source verification, ramp-up, soft start, and shutdown procedures; visibility,
seasonal, and frequency-dependent restrictions for various activities, as well as multiple
reporting requirements.
The SOCs have been updated with the mitigation measures (Project Design Criteria, or PDCs)
developed with NMFS during the 2021 consultation (Appendix A), which covered site
assessment and characterization activities associated with data collection in the Atlantic OCS,
including the Wilmington East WEA. 6 The activities include the placement and removal of
meteorological buoys and geophysical and geotechnical surveys associated with offshore wind
development. This consultation resulted in an informal conference opinion that the survey
activities considered here would not be likely to adversely affect ESA-listed marine mammals,
sea turtles, and fish or their critical habitat
The SOCs are discussed further in Section 4.1.14, Section 5.2.1.2, and Appendix A.
6
https://www.boem.gov/renewable-energy/nmfs-esa-consultations
84 EVALUATION OF NEW INFORMATION AND CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES
4.1 Alternative A (Preferred Alternative)
4.1.1 Benthic Resources
(Section 4.4.2.3 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA concluded that primary impacts on benthic communities would be
via direct contact by anchors, driven pile(s), and scour protection systems, which could cause
crushing or smothering of benthic organisms and habitat. These impacts would be localized,
given the extent of benthic habitat types on the Atlantic continental shelf, and would only take
place in a very small percentage of the total area of the WEAs (less than 0.2%). Data collected
during seafloor surveying would indicate the presence of potential benthic resources so that
sensitive habitat types, such as hardbottom and live bottom habitats, would be avoided by the
lessee during sub-bottom sampling and when meteorological facility siting decisions are made
(in accordance with BOEM policies to avoid impacts on sensitive benthic resources). Therefore,
impacts on benthic communities under Alternative A were anticipated to be negligible to minor.
New Information: After publication of the 2015 EA, BOEM funded benthic habitat mapping to
provide a baseline data set for potential future development of wind leases in the Wilmington
East and West WEAs (Taylor et al. 2016). The project contributes to the knowledge base
regarding benthic hardbottom habitat in the area and may be used to inform siting of
meteorological buoys associated with site assessment activities, which could further reduce
impacts from such activities. Additionally, PDCs and Best Management Practices (BMPs)
received from NMFS on June 29, 2021, will follow PDC 1 to “Avoid Live Bottom Features”
(Anderson 2021). Reasonable measures will also be included to avoid anchoring on artificial
reefs and shipwrecks.
In May 2020, NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) responded to BOEM’s request for
information on what was then referred to as the Carolina Long Bay area. In response, SERO
acknowledged that as part of the initial BOEM Call for Nomination (80 FR 73818) in November
2015, BOEM excluded lease blocks containing known artificial reefs.
Analysis and Conclusion: Both the 2015 EA and this SEA assume avoidance because the area
would be surveyed before bottom disturbance activities would take place. The additional
baseline data set improves the ability to avoid sensitive habitats. While an increased number of
meteorological buoys is now anticipated, impacts from pile driving and scour protection
associated with the construction and eventual decommissioning of a meteorological tower would
not occur. Additionally, the issuance of one to three leases versus only one lease in the
Wilmington East WEA is expected to result in the same impacts from site characterization
surveys (e.g., geotechnical surveys that would disturb the bottom) because the analyses in the
2015 EA were based on a conservative forecast of reasonably foreseeable activities. Therefore,
impacts on benthic communities under Alternative A are anticipated to remain negligible to
minor.
94.1.2 Finfish and Essential Fish Habitat
(Section 4.4.2.7 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA determined that meteorological tower and buoy construction and
decommissioning noise could disturb normal fish behaviors and could result in minor effects on
fish due to impact pile driving associated with meteorological tower construction.
Meteorological buoys and their anchors would displace substrate and water column habitat for
fish and also would provide hard benthic substrate, which could be of benefit to some species.
The impacted habitat would be extremely small relative to the available habitat, therefore
impacts would likely be negligible. Overall impacts on fish species from diesel spills resulting
from collisions and allisions were expected to be minimal and temporary and were anticipated to
be negligible.
New Information: There have been no changes in essential fish habitat (EFH) designations for
fish species since the publication of the 2015 EA. However, NMFS approved the implementation
of new management measures for the Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in May
2021 (86 FR 17318). The FMP created 34 special management zones (SMZs) around artificial
reefs in the Exclusive Economic Zone off North Carolina and South Carolina in order to restrict
fishing gear with greater potential to result in high exploitation rates. Two SMZs were
established near the Wilmington East WEA, AR-400 and AR-465, each with a 1,500 ft (457m)
radius; however, neither SMZ occur within the Wilmington East WEA.
The primary impact to fish and invertebrates from site characterization activity is acoustic
disturbance resulting from survey activities. A new technical report, Sound Exposure Guidelines
for Fishes and Sea Turtles by Popper et al. (2014), was issued too late for consideration in the
2015 EA. These guidelines are very useful in the broad discussion about more appropriate
acoustic thresholds for fish. This report does not attempt to identify a lethal injury threshold, but
instead classifies most sound as a recoverable injury threshold and adds more fish categories than
just the size category previously used.
Analysis and Conclusion: BOEM excluded hardbottom areas with artificial reefs from the North
Carolina Call Areas, which includes the Wilmington East WEA as described above. Also, as
described above, the new designation of SMZs in the region do not change the conclusions for
finfish and EFH from the 2015 EA. While an increased number of meteorological buoys are now
anticipated, eliminating the meteorological tower removes construction impacts from impact pile
driving and scour protection resulting in a project with a smaller benthic footprint than what was
proposed in the 2015 EA. Additionally, the issuance of one to three leases versus only one lease
in the Wilmington East WEA is expected to result in substantially the same impacts from site
characterization surveys (e.g., geophysical surveys that would generate noise and geotechnical
surveys that would disturb the bottom) because the analyses in the 2015 EA were based on a
conservative forecast of reasonably foreseeable activities. Therefore, impacts on finfish and EFH
under Alternative A are anticipated to remain negligible to minor.
104.1.3 Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
(Section 4.4.4.5 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA concluded that there was relatively low employment in the
commercial fishing industry in North Carolina. Fishing communities in North Carolina tend to be
small rural ports. Important commercial species included white shrimp, southern flounder,
summer flounder, brown shrimp, Atlantic croaker, and quahog clam. In 2012, 72% of
commercial fishing landings occurred within 3 mi of shore, and 28% occurred within Federal
waters. On the other hand, North Carolina ranked fifth nationally for expenditures related to
recreational fishing. In 2013, the number of angler trips in North Carolina was third among U.S.
states. Approximately 53% of trips were ocean trips within 3 mi of shore, and only 5% were
ocean trips beyond 3 mi of the shore. The remainder of the trips were inland trips. Based on the
relative importance of the analyzed WEAs for local fisheries, the vessel traffic levels expected to
be associated with site characterization surveys and site assessment activities, and the potential
impact drivers from these activities, the 2015 EA concluded that the impacts were anticipated to
be negligible to minor.
New Information: The Wilmington East WEA includes habitat for both federally and non-
federally managed marine species, including highly migratory species (HMS), which may
seasonally concentrate in high numbers while migrating, spawning, or foraging; therefore, the
distribution of marine species in the region may exhibit substantial intra- and interannual
variability. The 2015 EA provides a robust snapshot of commercial and recreational fisheries
socioeconomics. BOEM has reviewed the currently available data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and Census Bureau.
None of the available data exhibits a significant deviation from the data provided in the 2015
EA. However, a 2016 NOAA report indicates that North Carolina’s Commercial Fishing
Location Quotient is 0.06, indicating that significantly less commercial fishing occurs in North
Carolina than in the rest of the country (NMFS 2018b).
Data specific to the Wilmington East WEA is not currently available from NOAA. However,
state-wide data can be an indicator for fishing activity within the Wilmington East WEA. Low
state-wide activity would indicate likely low activity in the Wilmington East WEA; conversely,
high state-wide activity would indicate high activity in the Wilmington East WEA. State-wide
landings data from NOAA’s Fisheries Office of Science and Technology shows that Blue Crab
and Northern White Shrimp are the only species landed with a value of over $20,000,000
between 2015 and 2019 commercially in North Carolina. Commercial HMS landings as a whole
landed less than $2,900,000 in any year between 2015 and 2019 (NOAA 2021b). Recreational
anglers for most managed fisheries other than HMS are primarily comprised of out-of-state
fishermen, either from shore or private vessels. However, recreational fishing for HMS includes
for-hire vessels, private anglers, and tournaments. Landings by volume (in pounds) of HMS by
recreational fishermen as a percent of total HMS landings varied from roughly 56% in 2015 to
3% in 2018. In 2019, the total volume of HMS landed by recreational fishermen was roughly
25% of the total landings (NOAA 2021b). For-hire trips were a significantly smaller mode of
angler trips between 2014 and 2016 (NMFS 2018b).
Analysis and Conclusion: The new information that has become available since the publication
of the 2015 EA confirmed findings in the 2015 EA regarding relatively low fishing activity in the
11Wilmington East WEA. In fact, the fishing quotient in 2016 of 0.06 was significantly lower than
the 2015 EA fishing quotient of 0.15, indicating that less of the state-wide economy relies on
commercial fishing at this time than when the Wilmington East WEA was first analyzed.
Because a meteorological tower is no longer anticipated to be used (Section 1), there would be a
reduction in vessel traffic associated with site assessment activities. The issuance of one to three
leases versus only one lease in the Wilmington East WEA is expected to result in substantially
the same impacts because the analyses in the 2015 EA were based on a conservative forecast of
reasonably foreseeable activities. Therefore, site characterization-related vessel traffic would
remain essentially the same. Therefore, BOEM believes the reasonably foreseeable activities
associated with lease issuance in the Wilmington East WEA would not result in substantially
different environmental effects than those analyzed in the 2015 EA.
To reduce impacts further, BOEM has proposed in the PSN to include two lease stipulations to
ensure the lessee would coordinate and communicate their activities with commercial and
recreational fishermen. Prior to the development of these lease stipulations, BOEM had been
successful in using its review of survey plans and approval of SAPs to ensure that fisheries
liaisons are identified and that lessees are communicating with potentially affected fishing
groups. Nevertheless, BOEM has determined that these lease stipulations are prudent for future
leases. The specific lease stipulations are as follows:
Stakeholder Engagement Summary. The progress report must also include a summary of
engagement activities with ocean users potentially affected by proposed activities on the
lease or proposed project easement. This summary must identify potentially affected ocean
users, engagement activities with those ocean users during the reporting period, and a
description of efforts to minimize conflicts between ocean users and the lessee. With respect
to potentially affected fishing communities, the summary must describe what measures have
been taken during design of the facility to address fishing community concerns. The report
must also include a description of any anticipated engagement activities for the next
reporting period. As applicable, progress reports under this requirement may provide updates
on, or refer to sections within the, Fisheries Communication Plans (FCPs) or Native
American Tribes Communication Plans, and are intended to build upon those requirements to
provide regular updates on the progress of communication efforts with those and other
affected stakeholder groups. Within 30 calendar days from receipt, the lessor may request the
lessee modify the progress report to address any comments the lessor submits to the lessee on
the contents of the document. Comments must be addressed by the lessee in a manner
deemed satisfactory by the lessor.
FCP and Fisheries Liaison. The lessee must develop a publicly available FCP that describes
the strategies that the lessee intends to use for communicating with fisheries stakeholders
prior to and during activities in support of the submission of a plan. The FCP must include
the contact information for an individual retained by the lessee as its primary point of contact
with fisheries stakeholders (i.e., Fisheries Liaison).
The inclusion of these stipulations are anticipated to have a negligible to slight reduction of
impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries under Alternative A compared to those
described in the 2015 EA.
124.1.4 Birds and Bats
(Sections 4.4.2.1 and 4.4.2.2 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA concluded that the construction, presence, and decommissioning of
meteorological towers and buoys pose no threat of significant impact on birds. For federally
listed bird species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurred with BOEM’s “no effect”
and “not likely to adversely affect” determinations for all activities that would occur under the
proposed action. Therefore, effects on birds were anticipated to be negligible to minor. Because
of the anticipated distance between the meteorological buoys, there would be no additive effect
on bats from construction of the anticipated buoys. To the extent that there would be any impacts
on individuals, the overall impact on bats were anticipated to be negligible.
New Information: Since the publication of the 2015 EA, BOEM has reviewed new information
that resulted in greater resolution about migratory bird use of the OCS. This new information
includes the following: modeling of avian relative distribution and abundance of dozens of
species (Winship et al. 2018), a telemetry study of diving birds (Spiegel et al. 2017), and recent
wildlife survey work (Robinson Willmott et al. 2021) that spanned offshore the Carolinas and
included the Wilmington East WEA. The modeling and subsequent survey results show
relatively little bird activity in the spring, summer, and fall seasons; however, during the winter
months, there were relatively high numbers of phalaropes, razor bills, and Bonaparte’s gulls in
the Wilmington East WEA as predicted by the models (Winship et al. 2018) and confirmed by
recent surveys (Robinson Willmott et al. 2021).
On March 17, 2014, the USFWS concurred with BOEM’s determination that commercial wind
lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic OCS may affect, but will not likely
adversely affect, the Bermuda petrel, black-capped petrel, Kirkland’s warbler, roseate tern,
piping plover, and red knot. In addition, the USFWS concurred with BOEM's determination of
"no effect” to piping plover critical habitat. Although the red knot was listed as threatened in
December 2014 (79 FR 79706), the red knot was already covered in BOEM’s consultation with
the USFWS back in March 2014. Recently, the USFWS removed the Kirtland's warbler from the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife due to recovery in 2019 (84 FR 54436). In
response to BOEM’s notice to prepare this SEA, the USFWS met with BOEM on August 2,
2021, and also provided written scoping comments on September 7, 2021. In its letter, the
USFWS recommended deploying acoustic detectors and Motus Wildlife Tracking System
receivers during site assessment to collect data on pre-construction bird and bat presence within
the WEA.
Analysis and Conclusion: The new information that has become available confirms relatively
low bird and bat activity in the Wilmington WEA in the spring, summer, and fall, consistent with
the 2015 EA. Impacts of site characterization activities on birds and bats under Alternative A is
still anticipated to be negligible because the level of survey activity is not anticipated to be
substantially different than that anticipated in the 2015 EA (Section 1). However, site assessment
impacts to birds and bats would be reduced from those described in the 2015 EA because a
meteorological tower, the primary impact-producing factor for birds and bats, is no longer
anticipated. Therefore, BOEM now anticipates the overall impacts from site assessments and
characterization under Alternative A to be negligible.
134.1.5 Air Quality
(Section 4.4.1.1 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA concluded that nearby onshore areas were within the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and that the level of activity associated with the
installation of meteorological towers and buoys were anticipated to have negligible impacts on
air quality onshore.
New Information: The nearest onshore areas remain in NAAQS attainment, and the analysis of
emissions expected for the level of activity associated with the installation and operation of
meteorological buoys remains the same.
Analysis and Conclusion: The information presented in the 2015 EA remains accurate and does
not change the conclusions for air quality. Although an increased number of meteorological
buoys are anticipated, impacts from air emissions associated with the construction of a
meteorological tower would not occur. Additionally, the issuance of one to three leases versus
only one lease in the Wilmington East WEA is expected to result in the same impacts from site
characterization surveys because the level of survey activity is not anticipated to be substantially
different than that anticipated in the 2015 EA. Therefore, impacts on air quality under
Alternative A are anticipated to remain negligible.
4.1.6 Water Quality
(Section 4.4.1.2 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA reviewed the baseline data for the coastal waters of North and South
Carolina, including state and national water quality assessments, and concluded that the
instrumentation used for site characterization was self-contained, so there would be no
discharges to affect the water quality in the WEAs. Operational discharges from vessels are
strictly regulated and would disperse, dilute, and biodegrade. Spill risk due to collisions and
allisions would be small. Based on this information, the 2015 EA concluded that impacts to
water quality were anticipated to be minor.
New Information: New data from the North Carolina Water Quality Assessment Report from
2016 (USEPA 2016) indicated that 99.8% (302 mi) of coastal shorelines are listed as good, with
0.6 mi of coastal shoreline listed as impaired. The coastal shoreline was also listed as 100% good
for fish consumption and 99.8% good for recreation. Coastal bays and estuaries are sampled
separately from the coastal shoreline area in North Carolina; in 2016, 28.3% of those coastal
bays and estuaries are listed as impaired (890 mi2). In those areas assessed for more than one
designated use, fish consumption, recreation, shellfish harvesting, and water supply are listed as
95% good or greater, while aquatic life is listed at 95.7% impaired. Causes of impairment to
North Carolina bays and estuaries in 2016 include metals other than mercury, pH/acidity/caustic
conditions, algal growth, pathogens, and turbidity.
Analysis and Conclusion: New information has become available regarding the current state of
water quality, indicating that water quality has improved for North Carolina coastal shorelines,
bays, and estuaries, but this does not change the conclusions for water quality from the 2015 EA,
as this information does not impact site characterization and site assessment activities. While an
14increased number of meteorological buoys are now anticipated, disturbance of the seabed and
turbidity associated with construction of a meteorological tower would not occur. Further, survey
methodology and meteorological buoy design with regards to fuel and chemical storage have not
significantly changed since the 2015 EA. Additionally, the issuance of one to three leases versus
only one lease in the Wilmington East WEA is expected to result in substantially the same
impacts from site characterization surveys (e.g., geotechnical surveys that would disturb the
seabed) because the analyses in the 2015 EA were based on a conservative forecast of reasonably
foreseeable activities. Therefore, impacts on water quality under Alternative A are anticipated to
remain minor.
4.1.7 Land Use and Coastal Infrastructure
(Section 4.4.3 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA assumed that activities associated with issuing leases and approving
SAPs (i.e., installation and operation of meteorological towers and buoys) would be more or less
evenly distributed among several major and minor ports in North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Virginia. Additionally, the 2015 EA concluded that the use of existing ports and marinas for site
characterization and site assessment activities would be consistent with existing uses at those
facilities. Furthermore, no additional upland or coastal infrastructure would be required for site
characterization and site assessment activities. Therefore, no effect on land use or coastal
infrastructure were anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed action.
New Information: BOEM’s analysis of the ports used by Avangrid Renewables, LLC in their
SAP for the Kitty Hawk project offshore of North Carolina (OCS-A 0508) shows that survey
vessels, crew transfer vessels, and staging areas have been divided between existing commercial
and/or smaller ports in Virginia and North Carolina (Avangrid Renewables LLC 2020). This is
consistent with expected port usage identified in the 2015 EA.
Analysis and Conclusion: The new information analyzed does not change the conclusions
presented in the 2015 EA for land use and coastal infrastructure. While an increased number of
meteorological buoys are anticipated, impacts from vessel traffic and increased port usage
associated with the construction of a meteorological tower would not occur. Additionally, the
issuance of one to three leases versus only one lease in the Wilmington East WEA is not
expected to change the effects to land use and coastal infrastructure, as no additional upland or
coastal infrastructure would be required for site characterization activities. Therefore, it is
anticipated that there would still be no effect on land use and coastal infrastructure under
Alternative A.
4.1.8 Demographics and Employment & Environmental Justice
(Sections 4.4.4.2 and 4.4.4.3 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA concluded that site characterization and site assessment activities
(i.e., installation and operation of meteorological towers and buoys) were anticipated to have
negligible to minor impacts on demographics and employment because of the limited economic
activity associated with these activities relative to the sizes of the affected economies.
15The 2015 EA did not identify any environmental justice concerns resulting from site assessment
and site characterization activities.
New Information: BOEM reviewed baseline demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau
(2021), employment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021), and data regarding the
ocean economy from NOAA’s Economics: National Ocean Watch (ENOW) database (NOAA
2021c). BVG Associates LLC (2021) provides an assessment of the capabilities of North
Carolina ports to support offshore wind development, although this report does not specifically
analyze the likely geographic patterns of site characterization or site assessment activities.
BOEM also searched for information regarding site characterization/assessment technologies and
costs. For example, BOEM reviewed best practices for wind assessment presented in DNV GL
(2018), a discussion of the market conditions for site assessment technologies in Dodd (2018),
and the SAP for the Kitty Hawk project offshore of North Carolina (Avangrid Renewables LLC
2020).
Analysis and Conclusion: The new information does not show substantial changes in baseline
economic conditions and, while technology continues to evolve, the changes do not substantially
impact economics and demographics. While an increased number of meteorological buoys are
anticipated and there is the potential for an increased number of leases, impacts would not
change due to the limited economic activity associated with these activities relative to the sizes
of the affected economies. Therefore, impacts on demographics and employment under
Alternative A are anticipated to remain negligible to minor.
The 2015 EA did not identify any significant adverse effects on communities resulting from site
assessment and site characterization activities, and no new information indicates that this has
changed since then. Therefore, it is anticipated that there would be no effect on environmental
justice under Alternative A.
4.1.9 Tourism and Recreation
(Section 4.4.4.4 of the 2015 EA)
Background: The 2015 EA concluded that total vessel traffic associated with site
characterization surveys and site assessment activities would be relatively small, and, therefore,
potential impacts to tourism and recreation from accidental fuel spills were anticipated to be
negligible to minor. The WEAs were designed to minimize effects on the viewshed and primary
recreational resources; therefore, effects on tourism and recreation, as a result of meteorological
tower and buoy placement, also were anticipated to be negligible to minor.
New Information: Updated baseline data regarding recreational activities has become available.
For example, NOAA (2021c) provides county-level data on the scale of recreation and tourism in
North Carolina and South Carolina. In addition, National Marine Manufacturers Association
(2021) provides congressional-district-level data on the impacts of recreational boating in North
Carolina and South Carolina. Goedeke et al. (2019) provides information regarding the
importance of certain recreational activities to North Carolina and South Carolina residents in the
context of wind energy development. In addition, Parsons and Firestone (2018) analyze the
impacts of wind energy development on recreational beach use along the Atlantic Coast.
16You can also read
